[1279b]
[1]
but they can best
excel in military valor, for this is found with numbers; and therefore with this
form of constitution the class that fights for the state in war is the most
powerful, and it is those who possess arms who are admitted to the
government.) Deviations
from the constitutions mentioned are tyranny corresponding to kingship,
oligarchy to aristocracy, and democracy to constitutional government; for
tyranny is monarchy ruling in the interest of the monarch, oligarchy government
in the interest of the rich, democracy government in the interest of the poor,
and none of these forms governs with regard to the profit of the
community.But it is necessary to say at a
little greater length what each of these constitutions is; for the question
involves certain difficulties, and it is the special mark of one who studies any
subject philosophically, and not solely with regard to its practical aspect,
that he does not overlook or omit any point, but brings to light the truth about
each. Now tyranny, as has been said,
is monarchy exerting despotic power over the political community; oligarchy is
when the control of the government is in the hands of those that own the
properties; democracy is when on the contrary it is in the hands of those that
do not possess much property, but are poor.
[20]
A first difficulty is with regard to the definition. If the
majority of the citizens were wealthy and were in control of the state, yet when
the multitude is in power it is a democracy, and similarly, to take the other
case, if it were to occur somewhere that the poor were fewer than the rich but
were stronger than they and accordingly were in control of the government, yet
where a small number is in control it is said to be an oligarchy, then it would
seem that our definition of the forms of constitution was not a good one.1
And once again, if one assumed the
combination of small numbers with wealth and of multitude with poverty, and
named the constitutions thus—one in which the rich being few in number
hold the offices, oligarchy: one in which the poor being many in number hold the
offices, democracy,—this involves another difficulty. What names are
we to give to the constitutions just described—the one in which there
are more rich and the one in which the poor are the fewer, and these control
their respective governments—if there exists no other form of
constitution beside those mentioned? The argument therefore seems to make it clear that for few or many to have
power is an accidental feature of oligarchies in the one case and democracies in
the other, due to the fact that the rich are few and the poor are many
everywhere (so that it is not really the case that the points mentioned
constitute a specific difference), but that the real thing in which
democracy and oligarchy differ from each other is poverty and wealth;
1 i.e. it would be absurd to term government by the people democracy if the people happened to be very rich, or government by a few oligarchy if the few were poor and the many whom they governed rich.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.